Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Sinhagad Technical Education Society [2025] 302 Taxman 424 / 472 ITR 18 (SC). Editorial : PCIT (Central) v. Sinhagad Technical Education Society(2025) 472 ITR 15 (Bom)(HC) [IT Appeal No. 1454 of 2017, dated 24-11-2021] (para 12) reversed.

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Substantial question of law-High Court asked to formulate the second question of law as proposed by the Revenue as one of the substantial questions of law where High Court had already admitted the first question of law. [S. 13(1)(c), Art. 136]

PCIT v. Aditya Eastern India Pvt. Ltd. J.K. [2025] 302 Taxman 416 (SC). Editorial : Aditya Eastern (India) Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Chairperson, Central Board of Direct Taxes (2024) 169 taxmann.com 355 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 237: Refunds-Direction to Revenue to refund excess tax paid by assessee-Such direction was duly complied with after adjusting self-assessed liability-SLP to be disposed of. [Art. 136]

ITO v. Deccan Holdings B.V. (2025) 170 taxmann.com 663 /303 Taxman 336/ 472 ITR 639 (SC) Editorial : Deccan Holdings B.V. v. ITO (2022) 445 ITR 486 (Delhi)(HC) is reversed.

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Non-Resident-Most Favoured Nation-Protocol providing for deduction at lower rate-Tax to be deducted at rate as provided in agreement-DTAA-India-Netherlands. [S. 9(1) (1), Art. 10, Art. 136]

Radha Soami Satsang Beas v. NFAC [2025] 302 Taxman 420 (SC). Editorial : Radha Soami Satsang Beas v. NFAC(2024) 169 taxxmann.com 477 (P & H) (HC) (para 7) Set aside

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Revenue itself wanted the Order under S. 148A(d) to be set aside with liberty to issue fresh notice under S. 148A(b)-Order of High Court rejecting Writ Application of the Petitioner thereby affirming the order under S. 148A(d) is set aside with liberty as prayed for. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 136]

Ravi Agrawal v. UOI [2025] 302 Taxman 15 (SC). Editorial : Ravi Agrawal v. UOI(2019) 260 Taxman 352/ 410 ITR 399 (SC)

S. 80DD: Medical treatment of dependent-Disability-Amendment made to S. 80DD vide Finance Act, 2022 cannot be applied retrospectively to policies taken prior to 2014. [Art. 32, 142]

PCIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha [2025] 302 Taxman 5 (SC). Editorial : CIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha (2023) 156 Taxman.com 509 (P& H) (HC)

S. 68: Cash credits-SLP dismissed against High Court’s finding that additions were unjustified-Huge amounts deposited in foreign bank account in Geneva-Assessee pleaded that bank account belonged to nephew situated in UK-Assessee was an agriculturist and his name was struck from the bank account much prior to his visit to Geneva-SLP dismissed also on the ground of delay of 233 days, which was not explained properly.[Art. 136]

PCIT v. Ahinsa Vinimay [2025] 302 Taxman 359 (SC). Editorial : PCIT v. Ahinsa Vinimay (P.) Ltd(2024) 169 taxamnn.com 134 (Orissa (HC)

S. 68: Cash credits-AO made additions towards consideration received by assessee on sale of shares-Assessee had duly disclosed receipt of capital gains and offered for tax-No occasion for making addition-SLP to be dismissed on ground of low tax effect. [S. 153A, Art. 136].

Radha Madhav Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2025] 302 Taxman 358 (SC). Editorial : Radha Madhav Investments (P.) Ltd v.Dy.CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 421 (Bom)(HC)

S. 28(i): Business income-Capital gains-Delay of 752 days-Not satisfactorily explained-SLP of Revenue is dismissed on account of limitation. [S. 45, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 472 ITR 616 /303 Taxman 95/342 CTR 552 / 246 DTR 1 (SC) Editorial : Pr CIT v. Jupiter Capital (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 299 of 2019 dated 20-2-2023] (para 10) affirmed. (2025) 472 ITR 561 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 2(47) : Transfer-definition-Extinguishment of any right there in-Reduction of share capital by company amounts to reduction of rights of shareholder to share in distribution of net assets upon liquidation extinguished proportionately-Such reduction of rights is Transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act.[S. 45]

Dy.CIT v. James Hotels Ltd. (2024) 232 TTJ 976 / 38 NYPTTJ 1283 (Chd) (Trib)

S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Receipt of share application money in cash-The amount received by the assessee towards share application money did not fall under the purview of loan or deposits under S. 269SS and consequently, penalty under s. 271D was not leviable.[S.269SS]